Citation Nr: 0621978
Decision Date: 07/24/06 Archive Date: 08/10/06
DOCKET NO. 98-11 282 ) DATE
)
)
On appeal from the
Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in Cleveland,
Ohio
THE ISSUE
Entitlement to service connection for a bilateral eye
disorder, to include as secondary to service-connected post-
traumatic stress disorder.
REPRESENTATION
Appellant represented by: The American Legion
ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD
C. Palmer, Associate Counsel
INTRODUCTION
The veteran had active service from December 1942 to November
1945.
This matter arises before the Board of Veterans' Appeals
(Board) following a November 2005 Board Remand pursuant to an
August 2005 Court Order. This matter was originally on
appeal from a March 1998 rating decision of the Department of
Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) in Cleveland,
Ohio.
The Board notes that the August 2005 Joint Motion For an
Order Vacating the Board Decision and Incorporating the Terms
of this Remand urged the Court to vacate and remand the
February 2004 Board decision for failure to ensure compliance
with a prior January 2000 Board remand order pursuant to
Stegall v. West, 11 Vet. App. 268, 271 (1998). By Order
dated August 25, 2005, the Court granted the motion, vacated
the part of the Board's decision that denied service
connection for a bilateral eye disorder, and remanded the
matter for readjudication consistent with the motion.
The appeal is REMANDED to the RO via the Appeals Management
Center (AMC), in Washington, DC. VA will notify the veteran
if further action is required on his part.
REMAND
After review of the claims folder, the Board finds that the
issue on appeal must be remanded in order that the RO may
fully comply with the November 2005 Board Remand order.
Stegall v. West, 11 Vet. App. 268 (1998).
The November 2005 Board Remand instructed that the veteran be
afforded an ophthalmologic examination by an ophthalmologist
to ascertain the identity and etiology of any bilateral eye
disorder that may be present. The ophthalmologist was
requested to review all pertinent records associated with the
claims file and offer an opinion as to whether any chronic
ocular disorder found on examination is causally or
etiologically related to the veteran's military service to
include his experiences as a prisoner of war or otherwise to
his service-connected post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD).
Thereafter, the RO was to readjudicate the veteran's claim.
The record reflects that the veteran underwent an
ophthalmologic examination in January 2006, which was
conducted by an ophthalmology resident (J.G.M.); however, Dr.
J.G.M. did not indicate review of all pertinent records
associated with the claims file or offer a medical opinion
regarding the etiology of the chronic ocular disorders found
on examination. Although a medical opinion is later included
in the February 2006 eye examination report, it was offered
by an optometry consultant (J.P., O.D.), not an
ophthalmologist, and did not include review of pertinent
records. Moreover, the Board observes that the February 2006
medical opinion did not address whether the veteran's
currently diagnosed chronic ocular disorders are proximately
due to or the result of his service-connected PTSD.
Accordingly, the case is REMANDED for the following actions:
1. The RO should obtain a medical opinion
from Dr. J.G.M. that includes review of
all pertinent records associated with the
claims file and addresses whether any
chronic ocular disorder found on
examination is causally or etiologically
related to the veteran's military service
(to include his experiences as a prisoner
of war) or otherwise to his service-
connected PTSD (as contended by the
veteran).
Please send the claims folder to Dr.
J.G.M. for review.
2. If Dr. J.G.M. is not able to render
such opinion, the veteran should be
afforded with another ophthalmologic
examination by an ophthalmologist to
ascertain the identity and etiology of any
bilateral eye disorder that may be
present. All indicated evaluations,
studies, and tests deemed necessary by the
ophthalmologist should be accomplished.
In particular, if the ophthalmologist
determines that it is necessary to conduct
a 'conjunctival impression cytology' to
determine whether any chronic ocular
disorder found on examination is related
to the veteran's prisoner of war
experience, then it should be performed.
Additionally, if the ophthalmologist
determines that the veteran should be
further examined by an 'anterior segment
subspecialist' to ascertain whether any
chronic ocular disorder found on
examination is related to the veteran's
service, then he should be referred to
one.
The ophthalmologist is requested to review
all pertinent records associated with the
claims file and offer an opinion as to
whether any chronic ocular disorder found
on examination is more likely than not
(i.e., probability greater than 50
percent), at least as likely as not (i.e.,
probability of 50 percent), or less likely
than not (i.e., probability less than 50
percent), causally or etiologically
related to any incident of the veteran's
military service, including his
experiences as a prisoner of war.
The ophthalmologist is also requested to
offer an opinion as to whether any chronic
ocular disorder found on examination is
more likely than not (i.e., probability
greater than 50 percent), at least as
likely as not (i.e., probability of 50
percent), or less likely than not (i.e.,
probability less than 50 percent),
proximately due to or the result of the
veteran's service-connected post-
traumatic stress disorder. (The veteran
contends in the alternative that his
bilateral eye disorder developed as the
result of his post-traumatic stress
disorder.)
Please send the claims folder to the
ophthalmologist for review in conjunction
with the examination.
3. Thereafter, the veteran's claim should
be readjudicated. If any benefit sought on
appeal remains denied, the veteran and his
representative should be provided with a
supplemental statement of the case that
contains notice of all relevant actions
taken, including a summary of the evidence
and applicable law and regulations
considered pertinent to the issues. An
appropriate period of time should be
allowed for response by the veteran and
his representative. Thereafter, the case
should be returned to the Board for
further appellate consideration, if in
order.
The purpose of this REMAND is to obtain additional
development. The Board does not intimate any opinion as to
the merits of the case, either favorable or unfavorable, at
this time. The veteran has the right to submit additional
evidence and argument on the matters the Board has remanded
to the regional office. Kutscherousky v. West, 12 Vet. App.
369 (1999).
This claim must be afforded expeditious treatment. The law
requires that all claims that are remanded by the Board of
Veterans' Appeals or by the United States Court of Appeals
for Veterans Claims for additional development or other
appropriate action must be handled in an expeditious manner.
38 U.S.C.A. §§ 5109B, 7112 (West Supp. 2005).
_________________________________________________
John E. Ormond, Jr.
Veterans Law Judge, Board of Veterans' Appeals
Under 38 U.S.C.A. § 7252 (West 2002), only a decision of the
Board of Veterans' Appeals is appealable to the United States
Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims. This remand is in the
nature of a preliminary order and does not constitute a
decision of the Board on the merits of your appeal.
38 C.F.R. § 20.1100(b) (2005).